Karnataka High Court
R. Abbaiah Reddy (Since Dead By Lrs. ... vs Udaya Chandra [Alongwith H.R.R.P. Nos. ... on 14 November, 2006
Equivalent citations: ILR2007KAR371, 2007(1)KARLJ412
Author: N.K. Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
ORDER N.K. Patil, J.
1. In all these five petitions, petitioners-landlords are assailing the correctness of the order dated 27th November 2004 in HRC No. 1489/1996 (in HRRP No. 129/2005); in HRC No. 318/1997 (in HRRP No. 130/2005) and in HRC No. 320/1997 (in HRRP No. 131/2005) on the file of the II Additional Small Cause Judge, Bangalore and the order dated 2nd July 2004 passed in HRC No. 1579/1996 (in HRRP No. 623/2004) and in HRC No. 236/1997 (in HRRP No. 621/2004) on the file of the XII Additional Small Cause Judge, Bangalore.
2. The petitioner - landlord now represented by his legal representatives herein, has filed an eviction petition under Section 21(1)(h) and (J) of the K.R.C. Act, 1961 and now under Section 27(2)(e) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, against the respondents herein, in respect of the petition schedule premises called 'M. Ramaiah Reddy Lines' situated at Nanjareddy Colony, Murugesh Palya, Hamlet of Kodihalli, Varthur Hobli Bangalore-17, on the ground that, the existing constructions of AC sheet roof and RCC roofing are not in good condition and which requires to be demolished and reconstructed and after such reconstruction, he is intending to make use of the schedule premises for his own Use and occupation and to accommodate his son to do business and therefore, he has approached the respondents and other tenants and requested them to vacate the tenanted portions for the said purpose, but they were failed to vacate the same. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that he is having financial capacity to undertake the work of demolition and reconstruction and two of the tenants have accepted his request and vacated the same and therefore, he was constrained to file the instant petitions against the respondents, seeking eviction before the II and XII Additional Small Causes Court, Bangalore. After the receipt of the summons issued by the II and XII Additional Small Causes Court through the registry, respondents herein have appeared and filed their written statements, denying all the averments in toto and specifically contending that, the petitions filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in law; and that there is no jural relationship of landlord and tenants between the petitioner and the respondents; and since the petitioner-landlord is not at all the owner or landlord of the schedule premises and they are not the tenants under him at any point of time, the question of demanding the rent by the petitioner does not arise. Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the II Additional Small Cause Court in HRC No. 1489/1996 (in HRRP No. 129/2005); HRC No. 318/1997 (in HRRP No. 130/2005 and HRC No. 320/1997 (in HRRP No. 31/2005) has raised five points for its consideration which reads as follows:
1. Whether the petitioners proves that the respondent is his tenant in the schedule premises?
2. Whether the petitioners further prove that the requires the schedule premises for the purpose of demolition and reconstruction which cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated?
3. Does the petitioners prove that they require the schedule premises for their use and occupation and also use and occupation of their family members, and they are not having other reasonably suitable accommodation?
4. Does the petitioners further Provo that they are entitled for the order of eviction?
5. What order?
The XII Additional Small Causes Court, in HRC No. 1579/1996 (in HRRP No. 623/2004) and HRC No. 236/1997 and (in HRRP No. 621/2004) has raised four points for its consideration which reads as follows:
1. Whether the petitioners proves that there exists the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between them with respondent No. 1?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to an order of eviction under Section 21(1)(h) & (j) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961 now under Section 27(2)(r) and (e) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to an order of eviction against the respondent No. 2?
4. What order?
Both the Courts below, after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and on the basis of the relevant materials available on file, including oral and documentary evidence produced by both the parties, have recorded the findings on Point Nos. 1 and 4 in the negative and point Nos-2 and 3- do not survive for consideration in HRC No. 1489/1996 (in HRRP No. 129/2005); HRC No. 318/1997 (in HRRP No. 130/2005 and HRC No. 320/1997 (in HRRP No. 131/2005) and point No. 1 in the negative, Point Nos. 2 and 3- do not arise for consideration in HRC No. 1579/1996 (in HRRP No. 623/2004) and HRC No. 236/1997 and (in HRRP No. 621/2004) and by assigning cogent reasons and after conducting the full fledged trial and also considering the reliance placed by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and also with reference to Section 116 of the Evidence Act, have dismissed the petitions filed under Section 27(2)(e) and (r) of the Karnataka Rent Act. The Courts below have recorded that, there exists no jural relationship of landlords and tenants between the parties and in view of Section 43(1) of K.R. Act, 1999 and all further proceedings are stopped and directed the parties to approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction for the declaration of their rights. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below as referred above, these petitioners felt necessitated to present the instant revision petitions.
3. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioners. All the respondents are served and unrepresented, except the respondent in H.R.R.P. No. 623/2004.
4. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners Sri. M. Hanumanthaiah is that, both the Courts below have committed an error, much less material irregularity in passing the orders, without considering Ex. P2- certified copy of the joint memo and Ex.P3- affidavit filed by the respondents-tenants, wherein the respondents herein have admitted that they are the tenants and they are in arrears of rent and agreed to pay the amount and on the basis of the said joint memo the earlier suit filed by the petitioners herein was disposed of and that when these materials are very much available on file, the Courts below ought not to have passed the orders stating that there is a dispute regarding jural relationship of landlords and tenants between the petitioners and respondents. Further he submitted that, even the Courts below have failed to consider Section 116 of the Evidence Act. To substantiate his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 1994 (3) Karnataka Page 2264 before the Courts below, but the same has not been looked into. Therefore, he submitted that, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are liable to be set side.
5. After having heard learned Counsel appearing for petitioners at considerable length of time and after carefully perusing the orders passed by both the Courts below as referred above, it is manifest on the face of the orders that, the Courts below have not committed any error, illegality or material irregularity in passing the said orders. Both the Courts below after critical evaluation of oral and documentary evidence and other materials available on file have recorded the finding holding that, the petitioners have failed to establish the relationship of landlords and tenants. Further, the Courts below have specifically pointed out that respondents have categorically stated that, they are not the tenants under the petitioners and they are the tenants under one Smt. R. Jayamma who is none other than the sister of Late petitioner Sri. R. Abbaiah Reddy; that the said Smt. R. Jayamma herself has filed I.A. No. II for impleading and the same has been dismissed; against the said order, Smt. R. Jayamma has filed HRRP No. 1707/1997 and the same was also disposed of by this Court on 2.3.2001 with a direction to the 1st respondent there in, not to dispossess the said Smt. R. Jayamma pursuant to the order of eviction passed in HRC No. 1489/1996, as the same is not binding the revision petitioner therein and that the said order has remained unchallenged and therefore, the Courts below once again cannot determine the jural relationship of landlords and tenants and landlord between the parties. Further, the Courts below have observed that, admittedly, petitioners have failed to produce any authenticated documents to establish that respondents are the tenants under them. The said reasoning given by both the Courts below after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and other relevant materials available on file is just and reasonable and therefore, interference by this Court is not at all justifiable. Further, the Courts below have referred Section 43 which contemplates that, the Courts are bound to accept the document of lease as lawful and if there is not written document, the receipt of acknowledging the payment of rent purported to be signed by both the parties as prima facie evidence. But the instant case no such documentary proof is placed by the petitioners. Therefore, both the Courts below have specifically recorded the finding that, there is a complicated dispute regarding the title of the petitioners and one Smt. R. Jayamma and the order passed in HRC No. 2461/1993 remained unchallenged and respondents have already handed over the possession of the schedule premises to one Smt. R. Jayamma and now it is not safe to accept the jural relationship of landlords and tenants between the respondents and petitioners. Therefore, the Courts below have opined that, due to non production of cogent and corroborative evidence with regard to the title of the petitioners and in the absence of documentary evidence like lease deed and rent receipts and when the petitioners have failed to establish the jural relationship of landlords and tenants between the petitioners and respondents, the question of entertaining said petitions is not justifiable. The said reasoning is just and reasonable.
6. Further both the Courts below, after considering the reliance placed by the petitioners in the case reported in ILR 1994 (3) Karnataka Page 2264 and under Section 116 of the Evidence Act, have stated that, the facts of the above said decision and the facts of the case in hand is different and the ratio of the principles laid down in the aforesaid case is not applicable to the present case, since it is not the case of the respondents that, they were the tenants under the original landlord who was the vendor of the present landlord. Both the Courts below have specifically clarified in paragraph-30 of the order that, the courts have no impediment in arriving into the conclusion of non-existence of jural relationship of landlords and tenants between the petitioners and respondents. Therefore, in view of fact finding reasons recorded by both the Courts below after critical evaluation of oral and documentary evidence and other materials available on file that, petitioners have failed to establish that there is no existence of jural relationship of tenants and landlords between the petitioners and respondents, have rightly passed the orders and the same are in strict compliance of the relevant provisions of the Act. Therefore, interference by this Court is not justifiable. Nor I find any good grounds to entertain these revision petitions.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the instant revision petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed as devoid of merits.